[ridenrain]

Sniveling about the politics and not the topic at hand? lol.
I was reading that the Brits were doing this with their light infantry mortars too. Ammunition supply is a bitch and they were really just used for lobbing starshells and the like.

[Scape]

Why not get rid of the .50 cal as well. It's even before WWII.

Idiots.

[ridenrain]

Their working hard to replace the gun, but not the caliber.
Have you noticed that we don't use the 7.62 or 105 any more either?

40mm fusing is comming very far, very fast where as 60mm morters are hardly used by anyone so development is stagnant.

[DerbyX]

ridenrain ridenrain:

Sniveling about the politics and not the topic at hand? lol.
I was reading that the Brits were doing this with their light infantry mortars too. Ammunition supply is a bitch and they were really just used for lobbing starshells and the like.

Just pointing out that hypocrites like you led the charge attacking the Liberals when this happened under them then crawl under a rock when your party does it.

I don't expect you to have the character to admit it as you proved that quite admirably already.

[ridenrain]

Whan the members of the military hold my party as distastefull as youres, I'll give you the credit. Till then, we've got a long way to go.

[DerbyX]

ridenrain ridenrain:

Whan the members of the military hold my party as distastefull as youres, I'll give you the credit. Till then, we've got a long way to go.

Thats because those that are simply blame the entire Liberal party for any military blunder then excuse the CPC when it does exactly the same.

[ridenrain]

Let's get back on the topic, shall we?

[RUEZ]

ridenrain ridenrain:

Let's get back on the topic, shall we?

Good idea.

[DerbyX]

That is on topic. Seems to me that the federal govt "forcing" the army to dispose of useful equipment was a legit reason for attacking that federal govt and its decision. Its also on topic to defend it by pointing out hypocracy when others complain that it was just a stupid mistake and no reason for the CPC to receive darts.

Again I will point out that had this happened under the Liberals then you would have led the charge and focused the entire thread on vilifying the Liberals as being anti-military bastards and spent not a single post debating the equipment involved.

All that would have mattered to you would be the chance to attack the Liberals and you know it.

[RUEZ]

$1:

Although phasing the mortars out of service won't save money, the army was told by government bureaucrats that if it wanted to spend $90 million on a new automatic grenade launcher it had to get rid of a similar weapon, according to Defence insiders.

Does the treasury board have a rule that you can only have one weapon of a certain kind? Seems kind of strange that they aren't even saving money by getting rid of the mortars. Does this new weapon even do the same job as the mortar they are getting rid of?

[uwish]

DerbyX DerbyX:

RUEZ RUEZ:

Tricks Tricks:

So? Are Conservatives suddenly not allowed to say what the party they support is doing is wrong? You want us to be partisan hacks? What the fuck is wrong with you?

No shit. We didn't come on here screaming about Liberals or anything. A bad idea is a bad idea.

But would you have if this happened under the Liberals?

nope, instead they cancel helo deals that cost us 500million and put crews back into sea crates

then spend money on used subs that sit in dry dock in the UK for 4 years cause crooked face didn't want to spend the money anymore

thats what you get with liberals

[Bodah]

RUEZ RUEZ:

Does the treasury board have a rule that you can only have one weapon of a certain kind? Seems kind of strange that they aren't even saving money by getting rid of the mortars. Does this new weapon even do the same job as the mortar they are getting rid of?

The mounted grenade launcher is a direct fire weapon.

The mortar is an indirect fire weapon. It fires its shells in an arc.

Certain situations a motar would be prefered. I.E. enemy troops behind a wall or around alot of cover.

Troops prefer the mortar its lighter. But a mounted grenade launcher with its rapid fire can deliver some devastating firepower pretty fast. So both are usefull.

Two different weapons I dont know why the treasury board says one or the other, meh civilians....

[RUEZ]

Bodah Bodah:

RUEZ RUEZ:

Does the treasury board have a rule that you can only have one weapon of a certain kind? Seems kind of strange that they aren't even saving money by getting rid of the mortars. Does this new weapon even do the same job as the mortar they are getting rid of?

The mounted grenade launcher is a direct fire weapon.

The mortar is an indirect fire weapon. It fires its shells in an arc.

Certain situations a motar would be prefered. I.E. enemy troops behind a wall or around alot of cover.

Troops prefer the mortar its lighter. But a mounted grenade launcher with its rapid fire can deliver some devastating firepower pretty fast. So both are usefull.

Two different weapons I dont know why the treasury board says one or the other, meh civilians....

Ya, it seems like they are overstepping their bounds on this one. I'd say let the military decide what is needed.

[C.M. Burns]

From the article:

$1:

Keeping the mortars in the inventory would not cost that much - around several million dollars a year, according to supporters of the weapon.

$1:

May 12, 2008 HALIFAX -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper unveiled a "Canada First" defence strategy Monday, a 20-year plan worth about $30-billion that pledges to give the military the troop numbers and equipment it needs to do its job.

Too bad Harper didn't give them the money to do the job this year.

Way to support our troops, Steve!

[uwish]

and crooked face or dithers did it better???

RIIIIIGGGHHHTTTT